Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 012

Saturday, May 17 2003

• Re: Emuna/Bitachon - serenity or dialectic tension?
• Tanach
• Recent Daf and Magic
• Fw: gilgul (it keeps returning)
• Counting as adness
• Re: Bar Ilan Torah U mada lectures
• Le-Mishpachas
• Length of Shaul's reign
• Re: Emuna/Bitachon - serenity or dialectic tension?
• Tzitzis
• Re: Tzitzis
• Re: Tzitzis
• Wearing tzitzit
• Re: Bar Ilan Torah U mada lectures
• Re: Bar Ilan Torah U mada lectures
• bitachon - RAL
• Is grain alcohol chometz gamur?
• Swallowing a Fly
• R. Chaim Eisen's essay on Yeshiva education

On 12 May 2003 at 8:26, Eli Turkel wrote:
> R Aharon Lichtenstein in his new book of old speeches has an extended
> chapter on bitachon. He discusses two types of bitachon. One where one
> believes that everything will turn out okay and a second (championed
> by CI) that bitachon simply means emunah that everything is from
> hashem and nothing more than that (note he does not bring anything
> from RYBS). Chazon Ish dismisses the first alternative but RAL shows
> that in fact several rishonim do express such an opinion. In his
> extended essay RAL discusses the relation of the two approaches and
> situations in which each is valid.

I don't understand how the first form discussed above works. In our 
human experience, objectively speaking, R"L everything does NOT turn 
out alright. All kinds of terrible things happen to people, often 
young people, that are clearly not (from our human perspective) okay. 
This type of 'bitachon' strikes me as unrealistic. The CI's form has 
the advantage that it can work in all situations. 

-- Carl

At 07:27 PM 5/11/03 +0000, Eli Turkel wrote:
>One question was about the length of the Persian era where Chazal (54
>years) differ considerably from secular history. The answer was that he
>has enough troubles defending the authenticity of Tanach. In this case
>it is absolutely clear that Chazal erred. There can be debates about
>details and years but there is no way that the Persian kingdom lasted
>only 54 years

Such flippancy from a frum fellow (I assume the speaker was frum) is
unfortunate, to put it mildyl.

I must say, however, one of the internal problems I find most troubling
in Tanach is the 2 years of Shaul's reign. Although Josephus has him
down for 22 years, the external wuestion doesn't bother me - it is the
inteherent consistency of the narrative, which seems to evince a far
longer stretch of years, that is difficult to me. Tzarich iyun (azoi
zoght mehn oib mir hobben a kashya oif Chazal! not "it is absolutely
clear that Chazal erred," R"L).

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerushalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

We recently had in Avodah Zara a sugya about the "validity" of the
kochos to which idolators direct their worship. I think (ans in personal
conversation R' David Riceman was inclined to concur) that this sugya is
linked to the issue of the "validity" of magic that we discussed here
not too long ago - and the preponderance of the opinion in the Gemara
is that it has no validity - like the Rambam. QED :-) .

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerushalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

Back to an old topic -
from my London friend -
 to Reb Gil re Gil gul....

----- Original Message ----- 
From: shmuel
To: SBA
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 6:03 AM
Subject: gilgul (it keeps returning)

A while back I asked you to ask the person who gave a reference to Teshuvos
HoRosh to be more specific. I cannot find a mention of it anywhere. I just
dug up an old email of yours and I see that the correspondent is Gil
Student. May be you could ask him directly to enlighten me.

I just came across a nice piece in Abarbanel on the same subject - parasha
Ki Teze "Ki yeshvu achim" This is one of the classic references to gilgul in
the Toiroh, but his explanation is in-depth and length, quite nice all
round.

A query from my friend and colleague Joel Wolowelsky (JBW@atdial.net):
> Can you (or someone you know) help me with this. Somewhere in
> his Derashot (presumably regarding sefirat haomer), Rav Reiness
> discusses counting as associated with sadness. What is the exact
> source? Thanks. Joel

On 11 May 2003 at 19:27, Eli Turkel wrote:
> Yerushalmi brings that a young girl can't lose her virginity up to 3
> years old 

I thought the Gemara says that she could but that it would grow back.

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

In YU kesuvos the last names (of the bride, groom, and witnesses) are
generally written with a "le-mishpachas" preceding them. I vaguely
recall hearing that R' Moshe Feinstein also did so.

But I saw in hilchos gittin that the Rema (EH 129:16) specifically writes
not to use family names. If so, why we do we use them in kesuvos?
Lichora, a get should require more identifying descriptions than a
kesuvah, not less.

Is the Rema only referring to kinuyim of last names, but would allow
the proper last name?

Gil Student

RYGB wrote:
> I must say, however, one of the internal problems I find most troubling
> in Tanach is the 2 years of Shaul's reign. Although Josephus has him
> down for 22 years, the external wuestion doesn't bother me - it is the
> inteherent consistency of the narrative, which seems to evince a far
> longer stretch of years, that is difficult to me. Tzarich iyun (azoi
> zoght mehn oib mir hobben a kashya oif Chazal! not "it is absolutely
> clear that Chazal erred," R"L).

That does not troouble me too much; much can be crammed into a short
eventful life. However, one must realize that according to Chazal,
Shmuel and Shaul were nearly the same age - which throws light on quite
a few difficult verses relating to their interactions. This omek hapshat
reading is what may have prompted chazal to assign such a short period
to his reign.

[Email #2, titled: Shaul's reign/ correction
-mi]

Just realized that my previous post was muddled and in error.

Shaul reigned two years as in Shmuel 1, 13, 1. The Abarbanel, I think,
discusses the chronology and the issue of how close Shaul and Shmuel were
to each other in age. What I was trying to say is that the interaction
between Shaul and Shmuel appear in a different perspective when seen in
light of the fact that they would have been very close in age.

Mea culpa. I will look up the Abarbanel and hope to share it with all.

M. Levin

> I don't understand how the first form discussed above works. In our
> human experience, objectively speaking, R"L everything does NOT turn
> out alright. All kinds of terrible things happen to people, often
> young people, that are clearly not (from our human perspective) okay.
> This type of 'bitachon' strikes me as unrealistic. The CI's form has
> the advantage that it can work in all situations.

The problem is we have a number of sources which clearly state that
if one has proper bitachon that everything will work out. The Michtav
M'Eliyahu (vol 5 page 74-77) criticizes the Chazon Ish (though not by
name) for ignoring these sources. Moreh Nevuchim 3:51 seemed to have
been very bothered by the fact that the righteous suffer - until he had
"A very astounding idea that was revealed to him which removes doubts
and reveals Divine secrets"

R' Tzuriel "Otzros HaMussar" discusses this issue pp325-329. He suggests
that the Chazon Ish was well aware of the sources cited by R' Dessler
and he wasn't rejecting those views. What he was apparently rejecting
was the radical Mussar e.g., Navardok (p327-328) concept of bitachon -
which prescribes for everyone the level of bitachon relevant for only
a few great souls. The dispute then is what is the attitude the average
person should have.

The Lubavitsher Rebbe has a very interesting discussion of this tension
in the Sichos vol 36 Shemos also found in Shaarei Emuna page 109-134

                          Daniel Eidensohn

Just a query I would like to throw out to you folks.

Why do we require men and Boys to wear Tzitzis?
(I know its a mitzvah, but it is required when we wear a four cornered
garment. My question concerns why we go out of our way to wear a four
cornered garment.)
I am sincerely interested in personal answers.

Jordan Hirsch

From: Jordan Hirsch
> Why do we require men and Boys to wear Tzitzis?

I believe we discussed this in the past in connection with the custom
of wearing a talles qoton (even though the original ones were very
questionably chayyav in tzitzis). If you look in the Tur, he has an
entire siman devoted to the importance of remembering tzitzis, which in
themselves are supposed to remind you of the mitzvos; that siman has to be
read in the context that many did not have or wear a talles godol in the
time of the early rishonim. IOW, the mitzva of tzitzis transcended its
position as just one of the mitzvos 'aseh, which is the point of the Tur.

Seth Mandel

> Why do we require men and Boys to wear Tzitzis?

See Menachos 41a and Rambam, Hilchos Tzitzis 3:11.

Gil Student

From: "Seth Mandel" <trombaedu@earthlink.net>
>                               ... If you look in the Tur, he has an
> entire siman devoted to the importance of remembering tzitzis, which in
> themselves are supposed to remind you of the mitzvos; that siman has to
> be read in the context that many did not have or wear a talles godol in
> the time of the early rishonim. IOW, the mitzva of tzitzis transcended its
> position as just one of the mitzvos 'aseh, which is the point of the Tur.

Rabbi Macy Gordon, my rabbi in Teaneck, NJ, for many years (Jordan,
you remember Rabbi Gordon), gave me the same answer that Seth Mandel
mentioned, when I asked him the very same question.

He made a further comment, which I thought was very astute: the yarmulke
today is providing the same function as tzitzit were intended to provide,
and that in his opinion, the yarmulke is carrying too much halachic
importance among Orthodox Jews today, and wearing tzitzit not enough.

Michael Feldstein
Stamford, CT

> One question was about the length of the Persian era where Chazal (54
> years) differ considerably from secular history. The answer was that he
> has enough troubles defending the authenticity of Tanach. In this case
> it is absolutely clear that Chazal erred. There can be debates about
> details and years but there is no way that the Persian kingdom lasted
> only 54 years

I had a discussion concerning R' Schwab's original assertion that the
Persian kings lasted much longer than 54 years [he later retracted due
to the strong attacks against him] with one of the leading talmidei
chachomim in Baltimore several years ago. He said it is pashut that R'
Schwab's original assertion was correct. He said there is simply no way
you can read Rashi and other Rishonim on Tanach and maintain that there
was only 54 years. We are thus faced with the problem of reconciling
Chazal with the Rishonim. The secondary problem is the propriety of having
a solution which involves ascribing error to Chazal. Rashi Kesubos 57a
clearly rejects the idea that eilu v'eliu applies to historical facts. An
alternative solution is based on a variant text in Seder Olam (chapter
30) of 250 years instead of 52 years. This solution is rejected by the
Gra and most others.

                                                    Daniel Eidensohn

The question on the Persian era was asked by me at the very end of the
day. The professor was not particularly interested into going into details
especially as he has spent most of the time defending the Bible against
critics. He had as an aside mentioned that because of the problems he
did not major in the biblical era but rather the Persian era. Hence,
my question.

I understood his answer as being that historically there is no doubt
that the Persian era lasted several hundred years and that the various
historical answers are not accepted by any serious scholar. He did not
address the question of whether there are ways to explain what happened
in Chazal either by various girsaot or via R. Schwab etc.

a summary of the chapter on Bitachon in "By his Light" derashot from
R. Aharon Lichtenstein. This one was given after the Yom kippur war to a
conference of educators of the national religious school system in Israel.
The article is 28 pages long and so I apologize for the cryptic style
needed to make this readable in the email era. Everyone is referred to
the original for more details

Eli Turkel

------------------------------------------------

1. Medical intervention - we generally dismiss the Xtian philosophy
that we can not intervene in illness because it is the will of G-d and
indicates a lack of trust in G-d (aside I just came from a shiur of
R. Zilberstein of Bnei Brak who was very dismissive of this approach).

However, to be honest it is found within the Jewish tradition and is
not alien to Judaism. e.g. berakhot 60a R. Acha apologies for not simply
praying to G-d. Though Abaye appears to disagree see Taz (YD 336:1) that
theologically R. Acha us right but not everyone is on the level to be
saved. Similarly in Pesachim 56a that Chizkiyahu hid the book of medical
remedies and Rashis explanation that the people relied on it rather than
on G-d (see however Rambam). The strongest is Ramban on Bechukotai who
says the righteous in the days of the prophets would not go to a doctor
but would be blessed by G-d. R. Chaim Soloveitchik claimed it was put
in by a later copyist !! (obviously RAL didn't accept that). However,
RCS approach is mainstream and not Ramban. We follow Rambam on Chizkiyahu
and not Rashi.

2. Human effort - we stress free will and not reliance on miracles.
However, the question is more comples than being active or passive.
In the end we must rely on G-d anyway so what factors do we take into
account. eg someone doing a mitzva is not harmed but not when danger
is present. How does one define danger and miracle? general statements
do not lead to useful guidelines. A proactive attitude does always mean
less bitachon and a passive attitude does not mean more bitachon

3. 2 approaches to bitachon - (a) G-s stands by you and will assist you
see mishna Rosh Hashana 3:8 29a in fight against Amalek. his approach is
optimistic. With G-d's help everything will be all right. (b) Chazon Ish
rejected this - we know the future only through phrophecy. Trust means
realizing that there are no coincidence and everything is from Hashem.

RAL says that he feels that CI went too far and view (a) is within
Judaism. R. Bachya ben Asher in Kad Hakemach quotes Rabbenu Yonah that
Divine intervention can change reality in an instant, G-d's salvation
is close at hand even if a sword is at one's neck. Similarly R. Bachya
ibn Pakuda in Chovat halevavot defines trust as a peace of mind of one
who trusts and relies on G-d. The main definition of trust is that ones
heart should believe that the one who relied upon will fulfill what he
had promised and do good on his behalf (shaar habitachon chapter 1)

Kad Hakemach continues that if forced to abrogate the Torah one should
prefer to give up his life and in doing so has displayed bitachon.
obviously this approach does not claim it will always work out for
the best.

4. emuna (faith) is both cognitive and experiental. We must distiguish
between 2 facets of faith. Abraham had faith in G-d is not a cognitive
statement but describes his state of mind of complete dependence on G-d.
G-d is a shield to all those that trust in him. This is the essence of
the mitzva of Emuna.

A second insight is the mishna in Sotah 5:5 27b. Though he may slay me
still I trust in him. This had nothing to do with receiving from G-d
Ramban connects it with Olam Ha-bah however, this is connected with the
approach that Iyyov worshiped Hashem from fear. However, R. Yehoshua that
Iyov worshiped from love implies ove exclusively. see Rambam Teshuva 10:2
for a description of love of G-d. So Judaism recognizes both the hopeful
and exoectant trust based on faith and the steadfast and yearning trust
based on love.

the dual nature of trust in G-d appears in the Shir Hamaalot. In mizmor
121 we hear of G-d who does not slumber but protects us. This is the
perfect example of the hopeful trust with a positive outcome. In mizmor
131 we are compared to the suckling longing for his mother. The baby only
knows that he wants to be near his mother. He knows nothing of sacrificing
himself for her only that he wants to be at her side clutching her skirt.
Similarly Yirmiyahu 2:2 where we followed Hashem into the desert.

5. Historical development - desrtuction of the first temple brought a
fundamental shift (see Sanhedrin 105a about the comparison to a woman
who received her divorce). With the destruction simple faith disapeared
see mizmor 22 - G-d why have you abandoned me (attributed to Esther).
With Mount Zion in ruins how was it possible to believe that everything
will work out for the best? G-d's answer (Yechezkel 20:32-33) is that
not only is there brit ben habetarim but also that we are descendants
of Abraham, It was still possible to have faith even by the rivers of
Babylon. They now had a stronger faith than before. Their trust was
independent of external factors (see Ramban Shabbat 88a).

6. Bitachon today
we need a balance between optimistic bitachon of faith and steadfast
bitachon of love. With the establishment of Israel we are drawn towards
the faithful trust rather than the loving trust. In favorable times it
is hard to understand delf-sacrifice. It is easier to dismiss this world
when one doesn't have much to lose. The teachings of R. Kook suffused
with national and cosmic optimism also encourages an optimistic outlook.
However, the RZ movement has lost the equilibrium between the two aspects
of trust (I am not sure RAL would phrase it the same today). Now (1973)
is the time to rectify this skewedness but this does not mean abandoning
faithful trust. RAL is secure that G-d will not abandon his people and
that a national existence in the holy land is secure. We don't need
an insurance policy however the ability to trust during suffering is
important even if one doesnt anticipate difficulties. One needs to
respond to suffering and kearn from it and not downplay and negate it.

Trust demands that a person be convinced that G-d will help him. However,
it also prepares him fot he time that the help is not forthcoming.
R. Akiva heard in Bar Kochvah the footsteps of the Moshiach. When it
didn't work out he was the paradigm of loving trust.

At http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/kk-passover-purcpesach.htm, Rabbi Dovid
Heber, Kashrus Administrator of the Star-K writes (in the second-to-last
sentence of that article):

<<< Many individuals who do not sell chometz gamur will sell alcoholic
beverages before Pesach. >>>

Is this not a contradiction in terms? Are there opinions who say that
barley malt beer is something less than chometz gamur?

Akiva Miller

Toby Katz wrote:
>I always wondered how much of an aveirah it is to swallow
>a fly that just flew straight into your mouth and down your
>throat. Of course it is disgusting beyond words, so if it is
>an aveirah at all, I suppose it is one in which the aveirah
>and the onesh are one and the same.

I don't think that there is any aveirah because 1) you didn't do anything,
it just flew in and 2) you didn't eat it.

Gil Student

I am happy to be able to refer readers to the following essay by my
rebbe R. Chaim Eisen of Yerushalayim that appeared originally in *Jewish
Action* in two parts. It includes as well his response to a question
posed in the magazine. He encourages comment and criticism as "marbeh
eitzah marbeh tevunah". Many thanks to R. Micha Berger for helping to
arrange this posting.

<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/teaching.htm>

Yisrael Dubitsky

[I thought we should include a teaser. -mi]

Is Yeshivah Education Accomplishing What It Should?
by Chaim Eisen

   Said Rabbi Yochanan: What is [the meaning of] that which is written,
   "For the kohen's lips should safeguard knowledge, and they should
   seek Torah from his mouth; for he is an angel of the G-d of Hosts"
   (Malachi 2:7)? If the rav resembles "an angel of the G-d of Hosts,"
   then "they should seek Torah from his mouth"; and, if not, then they
   should not "seek Torah from his mouth."

   (Chagigah 15b and Mo`ed Katan 17a)

    Apparently, the meaning of likening [the rav] to an angel is [based
    on] that which is written, "I shall give you moving ones, among these
    standing ones" (Zecharyah 3:7). For man ... through his engaging in
    Torah ascends every day from level to level [and is therefore called
    "moving"]. And the angels are called "standing," since they stand
    at one level, as at the moment when they were created.... And Rabbi
    Yochanan's intention is that the rav, when he teaches his students,
    should direct his attention to raise his students and to explain
    [Torah] to them graciously. And he should not think at that moment of
    benefiting [through] his own [attendant spiritual] ascensions. For
    thinking of his own ascensions prevents [focusing on] his students'
    ascensions. And at that moment [the rav] must be like an angel,
    who is called a standing one....

    (Rav Pinchas HaLevi Horowitz, "Pithcha Ze`ira," Foreword to HaMakneh
    [Offenbach, 1801])

Over the course of almost twenty years of teaching in post-secondary
yeshivoth, I have often reflected on Rav Horowitz's admonition....

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]